Thanks Vets

Like Christmas or Easter, Memorial Day is one of those times when we focus on something that should be foremost in our minds every day. Every blessing we enjoy in this country has been bought and paid for by the men and women who through the years have given of themselves, sometimes at tremendous personal sacrifice, to ensure our freedoms. So, yes, we salute them today. But what exactly are we honoring?

Do we applaud war? Not me. I abhor the death and destruction that war brings, especially on the innocent. But it is necessary to have a bunch of people in a free society who are willing to stand and defend the rest of us. I am the proud son and father of US servicemen. I came of age in the Vietnam era and participated in the draft. It was a lottery back then, and my number was not called. Although I despised the way the politicians were prosecuting the war, I would have done my duty if asked. Had I not been too old, I might have enlisted after 9/11; seriously.

We are not honoring mayhem and destruction. Killing people and breaking things is not typical Christian activity, but when there are people in the world intent on killing us and breaking our things, it is only wise to have a defensive force to withstand them. The Bible teaches that God ordained certain men to carry swords (that's first century imagery) to restrain evil. Might never makes right, but there are times when right must be defended by might.

Are we honoring the policy decisions of today's leaders. Not me. There are legitimate questions to be asked in light of the shrinking nature of the globe; the libertarians rightfully ask whether it is ultimately in our best interest to project our might into every conflict in any hemisphere. I may not go as far as say, Ron Paul, on this issue, but there is a real need to reconsider America's role in the world when our battles are being financed by our grandchildren. There are many hurting people in the world that compassionate hearts ache to heal, but it seems unwise to mortgage the future give aid today.

On this day we honor the people like my son and my father who did not consider their lives too dear to risk everything to protect the rest of us back home. Forget politics; forget fiscal accountability; forget discussions about Augustine's just war theory. Just remember and salute all those who make it possible to have a free debate about all such issues. Do it today and tomorrow and tomorrow, ad eternum. They deserve it.

Healthy Fear

"Conservatives' paranoid alternate-reality can be explained by their brain chemistry."

So says the sub head under "Republican Fear Factor" on a blog I stumbled onto this morning. Salon.com reprinted an Alternet blog reporting a University College London brain study which purports to identify differences in the way conservatives and liberals process information neurologically. This study is linked with one at University of Nebraska - Lincoln which draws similar conclusions according to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain.

The two studies point out that the part of the brain known as amygdala are active in the human response to troubling situations. Citing differences in the relative size of the amygdala between conservatives and liberals, Mooney concludes that this “new research suggests [that] conservatism is largely a defensive ideology — and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments.”

I am not a neurologist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I know that the brain is incredibly complex. Five minutes of research reveals that the amygdala perform a far broader suite of activities than just inciting fear. For example, according to one encyclopedia, "The amygdala is also involved in the modulation of memory consolidation. Following any learning event, the long-term memory for the event is not formed instantaneously." I would like to suggest that a smaller amygdala might explain the liberals' apparent inability to remember promises or learn from history. I will not wait for any of our (primarily liberal) universities to confirm that.

My point is not to play dueling brain study. I would actually like to embrace what Mooney is implying. As a believer, I am inherently and proudly conservative. I wish to conserve tradition, morality, family, the Constitution and an orthodox interpretation of the Bible. I am genuinely concerned about threats to these dear principles. The Apostle Peter openly warns that our "enemy the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." That is what I hear in Mooney's conclusion. If we do not remain "sensitive and highly attuned" (Mooney) or "alert and sober" (Peter) we end up as lion lunch -- or as liberals.

Whoa! Baby.

Warning: this post may contain references that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Something on my Facebook wall got my attention this morning. It seems I missed the exciting first round and came in on the end of the fight. Earlier this year a group called Children of God for Life instituted a boycott of PepsiCo for alleged use of embryonic stem cells in its flavor research. Pardon my gruesome thought, but I pictured ground up babies in my Pepsi, not unlike the collagen scare a few years ago.

My first thought was that this is another melodramatic hoax fueled by mindless Internet forwarders and Facebook posters. So I did what I usually do when I smell fish: I went to Snopes.com. I found that the tangents people have taken off on (like my baby flavoring nightmare) are completely unfounded. The issue is too complex for the simple minded, but since I respect my readers' mental powers, I will summarize what I think has happened.

PepsiCo contracted with a company called Senomyx to research ways to enhance flavor using less sugar, salt and MSG. These are goals almost everyone can support. What came to light earlier this year and caused all the stir is that Senomyx had used a test agent which had come from a strand of DNA taken from an embryonic kidney in the 1970's. No embryonic cells went into any Pspsi products, and no embryonic cells were used by the firm PepsiCo hired to do research.

What did happen is that one piece of human embryonic DNA was used over forty years ago to start a stem cell line which has prospered into "workhorses of cellular biology," according to Forbes' Michael Herper in a Snopes report on the issue. So the sacrifice of one embryo years ago led to the creation of a research tool which has been used regularly in the medical field, and now surfaces in a commercial application. As Herper points out, "No new fetal tissue has been used; the use of this cell line isn't leading to new abortions." In fact, the cells themselves are no longer human; they are genetically engineered tissue which sprang from a bit of human DNA.

No one is more disgusted by abortion and the toll of human lives taken than I am. If some one wants to boycott PepsiCo for funding Planned Parenthood or paying for abortions in its employee health coverage, I can understand. But to imply that all research which has even the remotest link to human cells is evil is going too far. By that reasoning we would have to be against organ donation (I know some Christians are.) By that reasoning we would have to shut down all research that uses any form of human cells, adult or embryonic (Say goodbye to all those wonder drugs we use so freely.) By that reasoning medical schools should not use cadavers to teach anatomy. Etcetera ad infinitum.

We are sometimes forced into dark places "that good may come," to borrow a line from Edith Wharton. I understand the need to close doors that might lead to new incentives to harvest embryonic cells. But in this case, the "damage" is long done, and only good may come. I see the use of genetically engineered material as an opportunity to create life from death. Not to stretch our spiritual mandate too thin, but is that not what we are called to do every day in this death dominated domain we inherited from our proto-parents?

Spamming Facebook

Breaker, breaker Fb. Anybody got a copy on me? Over.

Almost half a century ago, when I got into the then new Citizens' Band radio fad, there were rules governing the establishment of what was called a "station." As I recall, I had to read and swear compliance with a set of operational standards. These included stating my call sign (KJB6733) at the beginning and end of each transmission. I was supposed to limit my transmissions to a few minutes. Stations were not allowed to have more than four watts of power. And one more rule which brings me to my subject of the day: I was not supposed to "broadcast," which means sending a transmission with no intended receiver.

When people started violating these rules, boosting their power and talking endlessly to no one in particular, CB radio lost its usefulness for the average citizen. The airwaves became electronically cluttered with indecipherable noise being generated by illegal stations to the point where usable reception was limited to little more than a mile. Before the rules were smashed, send-and-receive transmissions of over twenty miles were not unusual.

My dear reader may be wondering what in Heaven's name this has to do with Facebook. Just this: Fb is now becoming so cluttered with trivial "broadcasts" by my "friends" that it has become practically unusable. One may argue that this situation is a result of my choice of friends. This would be correct in part. Someone else may wish to point out that I have the option of un-friending anyone who clutters my wall or at the very least, hiding their posts. That is also true. Sadly this places the burden of creating a usable tool entirely in my hands.

I say sadly because my hidden friends may occasionally write something I want to read, and it should not be my sole responsibility to police the medium. If there were a set of rules, Facebook etiquette say, we could all take part in keeping our walls clear for useful posting. Were that the case, I would be able to take note of the significant happenings in my friends' lives without having to wade through fathoms of frivolity to get the news. If people posted only truly meaningful or entertaining information, Fb would be far more useful. I say this as a member with less than two hundred friends. I cannot imagine what it is like for those with more.

This situation is nearly a direct parallel to spamming in email. I am not referring to the commercial practice of broadcasting advertising through email. I am calling spam those ridiculous forwards that some people cannot help but forward no matter how trivial or outlandish they may be. If I read one more time how rich we would all be if only the government had given the stimulus dollars directly to us, I will scream. (Do the math people; it's hundreds, not tens of thousands each.) Nor is my opinion of my contacts improved when they forward mail which ends with near death threats if I refuse to follow suit and spam my entire contact list.

The question may have arisen in someone's mind asking what this post is doing under my blog title. It should be obvious: believers are called to join in fellowship (koinonia) with one another. Facebook is a great place to do this. I could do a better job of laughing when you laugh and crying when you cry if I could get to those posts more easily. I have been known to stop at a post and utter a little prayer when the Spirit leads me. That is the body in action in cyberspace. That's Y2Kristian. 10-4?

Please post a comment or "like" this on Fb if you agree.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I am saddened by the untimely death of anyone. When a child's life ends abruptly it seems especially sad. When that child's end is brought by violence at the hands of another human being, "senseless" is the only word that seems to fit. Not without reason, the people around the lost child often react in ways that are equally senseless. Grief clouds judgment; pain blurs clarity, but the opportunists who gather around these incidents have no such excuse for their behavior.

The February shooting in Florida of Trayvon Martin by the Neighborhood Watch person, George Zimmerman, exploded onto the national scene weeks after it happened. CNN appears to be the first national news outlet to carry the story. It is unclear how they picked it up, but its rise from their March 12 opening is meteoric. Within days everyone from the Black Panthers to the President was talking about the case. It is no surprise that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hitched their wagons to this star. Their willingness to capitalize on someone else's sorrow knows no bounds.

I do not wish to diminish the tragic nature of Trayvon's death, but the rush to judgment and cries of racism without the first shred of clear evidence leads to the realization that the young black man was only the first victim in this sad tale. It is also ironic that the media by and large initially identified the shooter strangely as a "white Hispanic." Since these two terms usually define mutually exclusive racial categories, one must wonder why they were paired in this case. They had the effect of moving Attorney General Eric Holder to suggest the Feds may investigate the incident as a "hate crime," a category I dislike. Are not all unlawful killings evidence of hate?

The irony multiplies. A little research reveals that Zimmerman has long been active in anti-discrimination cases against blacks. People who have known him for some time report that he is the last person they would imagine commiting a racially inspired act of violence. He was raised in a multi-racial home, and although his name might suggest otherwise, he does have Hispanic blood. None of this makes the news, but the unusual appelation "white Hispanic" does.

The worst of it was trumpeted not surprisingly by Al Sharpton just the other day. The Reverend called for the strictest punishment possible for George Zimmerman. I am not surprised that Sharpton would say something like this; what surprises me is that so many people seem to agree. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? There is way too much uncertainty about the facts of the shooting, too many conflicting witness statements, judges recusing, attorneys quitting, police chiefs stepping down to move to the sentencing issue. George Zimmerman must be given the trial he deserves; that it will be a fair trial is made less likely by all the irresponsible meddling and calculated machinations of self-serving outsiders.

Missing Santorum

I watched a few minutes of Sean Hannity's interview with Mitt Romney last night. Both men made me uncomfortable: Hannity because of his irritating answer within a question interview style and Romney because of his same answer no matter what the question attitude. Hannity's practiced transparency and the candidate's polished obscurity were in dazzling display. Winston Churchill's comment about Russia sounds eerily like the Republican presumed nominee: "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

Santorum was not at all like that. You knew what you had with Rick. You felt comfortable calling him Rick, even though you didn't know him. He wore his positions like a sweater vest, right there for all to see, in style or not. He sometimes stumbled or gaffed because he said what he meant and meant what he said. He really didn't care about the unemployment number, for example. He knew, as does anyone who cares to look closely, that the unemployment numbers are not a true measure of our economic condition. Beyond that, he knew that unemployment is a symptom of a deeper problem anyway.

Unfortunately, all that depth, that nuance as some like to call it, does not play well as a sound bite. Precious little in life is simple enough to play in ten or even thirty seconds. Bumper stickers and political slogans are catchy, but they often hide more than they reveal. Remember hope and change? How's that working out for us, really? In truth, this election, perhaps more than most, does boil down to the question of change, and I don't mean a simple change in the resident of the White House.

Barak Obama and those Democrats who follow him (not all do, by the way) want a fundamental change in the way America works. They want a society where the government assures equal outcomes for all citizens. Politically speaking, this has always been called socialism. It is not politically correct to call the President or his policies socialist, but that is what they are. The move to national health care is only the most obvious example of this policy. Banking, energy production and manufacturing all have felt the heavy hand of socialistic change dragging them away from the free market model of economics.

Rick Santorum's popularity was greatest among people who know what it means to make their own way. He understood that the only thing most people need to get ahead is for government to get out of the way. Romney talks like that most of the time, but then you look at his record, especially MassCare. He once openly called MassCare a model for a national health care system. Now he has walked back from that to appease the majority of Republicans who disdain the very thought of nationalizing any facet of the American economy, least of all health care.

America was founded to be a place where equal opportunity was provided for all, not equal outcomes. All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to pursue, not the right to obtain, says the Bible and accordingly says the Declaration of Independence. So little does our current President respect those documents that he can't even cite the correct one when he does give a nod. This is no surprise since he also appears clueless about the check and balance system intended by the three branch government in which he participates. November will be interesting: two slick talkers with far different visions for America, but not a sweater vest on either one. I miss Rick already.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

I was having breakfast with a friend this week when the subject of President Obama’s unscripted comments about the Supreme Court came up. If you are not a political junkie, you may not have heard what the President said at a news conference Monday last. In the interest of fairness, I will quote his remarks in full.

In answer to a reporter Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

The next time I need a definition for the word “disingenuous” I will drag this out. It would also make a pretty good sample of political irony. It is inconceivable to me that our President does not realize how completely phony his judgment sounds. I know this same argument was used in 2000 when the Supremes stole the presidency from Al Gore, but other than that, it is always the progressives on the courts who are overturning laws passed democratically.

Then there is the Presidential audacity to say the health care reform law was “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Perhaps he meant to say by a Democrat majority, which is quite different from calling it democratically elected majority. Surely he cannot have forgotten the outrage across the country, the birth of the Tea Party, the groundswell of democratic electors who opposed the measure.

Maybe President Obama is actually ignorant of the proper role of the Court in a three branch system, as astounding as that seems given his training as a lawyer. Ed Rogers, a conservative blogger at the Washington Post (yes, they have one) wrote in response: “ His [Obama’s] comments indicate that he still grapples with how to handle the presidency and that we’re still witnessing the on-the-job training required when you elect a part-time state senator and a “community organizer” as president of the United States.” I wonder if the President is not in training, but rather is trying to remake the government in his image. I wonder if the balance of powers  so wisely instituted by the founders is an impediment to his agenda, so he seeks to demolish it. It is the check and balance system which has kept human deviousness (aka sin) from destroying what we have.

I am quite sure President Obama is not ignorant; I think he knows exactly what he is doing. If he succeeds, it will be because we the people are ignorant. We are ignorant of the real beauty of constitutional government and what its loss will mean to those who love what America has been for two hundred plus years. At breakfast my friend suggested we need to stop harping about all this founding fathers stuff and make the argument more relevant; people do not care about constitutionality any more, he said. I say just the opposite; we need to re-educate people about how unique our Constitution is; we need to make people understand why the founding fathers are still relevant to today. Failing that, I fear we will end up with Obama’s vision of a changed America. Not a change for the better in my humble opinion.